Science from the other side of Climate Change

[IBDaMann]

Do you know how glaciers GROW? Let me tell you.

Nope. You are supposed to be explaining how a climate changes, not how a glacier changes ... or don't you know the difference between a glacier and a climate?

By the way, when a glacier shifts in location, you don't get to pretend that only half of the process, i.e. the receding in one location part, is all that happens. You need to also discuss the growing/forming glacier in the new location.

Glaciers shift because changing atmospheric currents redirect water/precipitation which flows from a different location. There's no temperature change involved.

Oh, and regarding temperature changes, when the temperature increases as the morning transitions to noon and the temperature increases in a given location, the location's climate does not therefore change. Climate has no temperature component. Climate has no value properties whatsoever. I have no idea why you tried to even go there.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you saying science cannot be used to explain the past?

No theory of science describes past unobserved events. You don't even know if the so-called 'ice age' even happened.

 

[Into the Night]

The shrinking of a glacier due to warming weather trends is climate related.

Climate is not weather. Climate has no temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. What about the expanding glaciers?

The question is what is the cause of the warming. My bet is it isn't CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric content of CO2.

cli·mate
[ˈklīmət]
noun

1. the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period

Define a 'long period'. What is the weather conditions of an economic climate or a political climate?

Redefinition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't have a value for pain, but pain level can change. Stop playing word games.

Your word games won't work, Void. Inversion fallacy.

I didn't say ice age was climate. Stop playing word games.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Normal can be a range

So you can't define 'normal'.

and, as I already said, and you already know, it is not normal for sheet of ice to cover most of the northern hemisphere.

It is in the winter.

"What do you mean by 'warm'? What is the temperature of 'warm'? Climate has no temperature or age."

Stop play word games.

Inversion fallacy. Deflection. Answer the questions put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay, if climate remains the same, then why did the glacier recede by a mile-and-a-half in a century?

Climate isn't a glacier, dude. What do you mean by 'the glacier'?? What about expanding glaciers? What about all that snow and ice that isn't a glacier?

 

[Into the Night]

@Into the Night

ZenMode did it. He has asked the irrelevant unrelated pivot question that he will chant ad infinitum, and demand answers for the next six months, rather than admit he was a bonehead who, once again, just couldn't be bothered to think it through before posting.

The typical repetition of questions already answered, and never answering any questions put to him.

 

[Into the Night]

No. I'm claiming changes to the glacier were caused by climate, and additionally, that you for some reason are too retarded to figure that out.

Climate isn't a glacier, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Beyond it being changes in climate, I don't have to.

You not only have to, you have to explain what is 'changing' in a climate. You can't get away with avoid the questions put to you.

The glacier changed dramatically

What is 'The Glacier'?? What about glaciers that are expanding or staying the same? What about all that snow and ice that isn't a glacier?

and it wasn't due to space aliens or nuclear war. It was due to changes in climate.

What climate? What is changing? What about glaciers that are expanding? What about all that snow and ice that isn't a glacier?

I don't have to specify those changes beyond that they occurred, whatever they may be.

Yes you do. You also have to specify what you mean by The Glacier. You also have to specify what is changing in a climate.

 

[Into the Night]

Show it wasn't climate changes that caused the glacier to recede and or it is your king that gets tipped.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Answer the questions put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

So you don't think climate is part of the environment?

Hmmmmmmm, that would be pretty fuckin' stupid.

What environment?

 

[Litmus]

Saying climate can't change is just more playing word games and playing dumb.

conversely, saying climate can change is just playing smart.

 

[Litmus]

What environment?

souds like the false envronment fallacy to me.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes, it is cripplingly vague.



"3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale." is the object of the sentence.

"natural stabilizing" is the subject.

"account for" is the verb.

What does "doesn't account for" mean? Does it mean "render inconsequential"? Does it mean "can't repair on any time scale"?

What is "the latter" and "the former"? Do you mean the object of the sentence is the latter and the subject is the former?

Then "3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale." greatly affects "natural stabilizing"?

In which case do you mean every part of your compound object or just one?

Urbanization doesn't prevent trees from planting themselves or us from planting trees. The supposed "pollutant" of "greenhouse gasses" is the only globally detectable atmospheric pollutant and heavy metal in fish seem to kill humans or make them environmentally conscious which I guess you could call an 'effect'.

Sorry toodles, but you're not going to detour away from what I previously stated that contradicts the anti-climate change rhetoric.

When the smoke clears from your BS, here's how one proves you wrong on your original assertion(s):

Urbanization doesn't prevent trees from planting themselves or us from planting trees.

A primer for your education: www.research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/60941

The supposed "pollutant" of "greenhouse gasses" is the only globally detectable atmospheric pollutant and heavy metal in fish seem to kill humans or make them environmentally conscious which I guess you could call an 'effect'.

No "guess work" regarding greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollutants. Observe and learn:

www.archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/air-quality-and-health/health-impacts/types-of-pollutants

www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain

 

[ZenMode]

Invalid pivot. You are on tap to explain why any rational adult should believe that an "ice age," as you have yet to unambiguously define, ever occurred.

Nope. You need to explain why any rational adult wouldn't believe in an ice age, given that scientists believe there have been multiple ice ahes.

Again, you claim to be all about science....

 

[ZenMode]

Your word games won't work, Void. Inversion fallacy.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

So you can't define 'normal'.

It is in the winter.

Inversion fallacy. Deflection. Answer the questions put to you.

More word games. More playing dumb.

Normal, in this case, is there not being sheets of ice covering the northern hemisphere. "Ice age" isn't winter...which you already knew. If it was, and since winters are normal, it wouldn't be identifiedz by SCIENTISTS as an abnormal occurrence.

 

[ZenMode]

conversely, saying climate can change is just playing smart.

Nope. The claim is, since there isn't a single measure of climate, it must not be measurable, changes can't be identified and, therefore we can't say it changes. It's the equivalent of saying your health can't change because there is not a single measure of health.

It's word games.

 

[Litmus]

Nope. The claim is, since there isn't a single measure of climate, it must not be measurable, changes can't be identified and, therefore we can't say it changes. It's the equivalent of saying your health can't change because there is not a single measure of health.

It's word games.

right.

it's not meaningfully measurable.

it's not measurable enough to justify ant-co2 policies.

being anti-co2 is insane for multiple reasons.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Sorry toodles, but you're not going to detour away from what I previously stated that contradicts the anti-climate change rhetoric.

When the smoke clears from your BS, here's how one proves you wrong on your original assertion(s):

Urbanization doesn't prevent trees from planting themselves or us from planting trees.

A primer for your education: www.research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/60941

The supposed "pollutant" of "greenhouse gasses" is the only globally detectable atmospheric pollutant and heavy metal in fish seem to kill humans or make them environmentally conscious which I guess you could call an 'effect'.

No "guess work" regarding greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollutants. Observe and learn:

www.archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/air-quality-and-health/health-impacts/types-of-pollutants

www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain

A bunch of irrelevant links, daylight must be impressed.

Damn this is disappointing. I thought there would be one person who could debate a scientific or engineering subject on this site

 

[Daylight63]

Nope. You are supposed to be explaining how a climate changes, not how a glacier changes ... or don't you know the difference between a glacier and a climate?

By the way, when a glacier shifts in location, you don't get to pretend that only half of the process, i.e. the receding in one location part, is all that happens. You need to also discuss the growing/forming glacier in the new location.

Glaciers shift because changing atmospheric currents redirect water/precipitation which flows from a different location. There's no temperature change involved.

Oh, and regarding temperature changes, when the temperature increases as the morning transitions to noon and the temperature increases in a given location, the location's climate does not therefore change. Climate has no temperature component. Climate has no value properties whatsoever. I have no idea why you tried to even go there.

No, you said you wanted evidence the climate change could account for glacial retreat. What I described is how it happens.

In fact you also say pretty much the same thing, you just aren't brave enough to explain WHY these things might change.

Why do you think "atmospheric currents" would redirect "flows from a different location" (whatever the fuck that means)? And why would they do so in such a manner that after MILLENIA of glacial growth it starts to retreat year after year after year after year after year?

Sounds like change in the climate there.

Be brave. Follow the science.

 

[gfm7175]

No, I'm claiming the glacier receded 1.5 miles because the climate it exists in changed.

The glacier is not "the climate". When you say that "the glacier receded 1.5 miles", you are describing to this forum a change regarding the glacier, not regarding "the climate". IOW, you are using an objective quantifiable unit of measure (in this case, miles) in order to describe how the glacier has changed.

Regarding climate (a subjective characterization of a locality), there is no objective quantifiable unit of measure involved, so there is no change involved with climate.